There are many criticisms I could make of your post Buz. It rather I will deal with the real issues.
There are two issues here:
1) Assertions are not observations. False assertions should not be treated as evidence - at least not in any way that presumes their truth. Nor should assertions which are merely assumed.
2) There needs to be a sound chain of reasoning connecting the alleged evidence to the conclusion (this is probably what you are really talking about when you are talking about theory as evidence). This chain should explain why the alleged evidence gives us a reason to favour the conclusion.
I submit that you have frequently fallen down on both parts. And your failure to recognise this is one of your biggest problems here.
If you believe otherwise, I am quite happy to address any axamples that you wish to produce.
™ Version 4.2